In an article released by The Hollywood Reporter earlier this fall titled “Summer Box Office Fallout: Studios’ New Fear of the $200 Million Tentpole” there was a little bit about Trek 3′s (and the previous Trek movie’s) production costs.

...

Paramount also will look to save money on another Star Trek — a franchise, but not quite in the top tier. This summer’s $190 million production Star Trek Into Darkness has earned over $462 million worldwide; its international haul has exceeded expectations at $234 million, but domestically, its $228.5 million hasn’t matched the first film. Whereas the first two were shot in L.A., the next will be filmed in a more tax-friendly location. “We’re making it for what it should have been shot for last time if we had made it outside of L.A., which we would have done except that [director J.J. Abrams] didn’t want to,” says a studio source. “That was a $20 million issue.”

I’m actually in favor of this. The last major budget reduction to the franchise resulted in the yet to be dethroned best Star Trek film made. While I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness quite a lot, there were still things about J.J.‘s style, and the bid budgeted-ness of it that annoyed me.

We reivew movies and TV shows, aggregate movie and TV news, offer opinions and analysis, and most of all, have good fun and greaet disucssion. We love filim and TV and we want to share that love with you.